alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08-0039-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	FEBRUARY 11, 2008

	______________________________

	FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS ($5,459.00),

										Appellant

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

										Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 95,419-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

	________________________________

		MEMORANDUM OPINION

	___________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellant Jerome Howe filed a notice of appeal on January 14, 2008, from a final summary judgment signed on October 1, 2007.  No motion for new trial or like request extending the appellate deadline was filed.  Consequently, appellant had until October 31, 2007, to file a notice of appeal.  He did not do so.  Thereafter, we afforded him opportunity to explain why his notice was untimely and why we had jurisdiction over the appeal.  This resulted in his response informing us that the district clerk did not notify him of the summary judgment until December 6, 2007.  Why he did not perfect his appeal within 30 days of December 6th went unexplained, however.  Moreover, the allegations in his response did not satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(4), which rule permits the belated perfection of an appeal when neither the litigant or his counsel garnered notice or knowledge of the final judgment.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(5) (prescribing the steps that must be satisfied to obtain the benefits of Rule 306a(4)).  Given these circumstances, we cannot but conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.  Thus, it is dismissed. 

							Per Curiam
# C_2020209EN.01002602.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CV and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Fixed entertainment allowance - Accommodation expenses - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of care - Equivalence in purchasing power - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 209/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: CV, CW and CY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision by which that institution’s appointing authority rejected the applicants’ request for, in essence, an increase, where applicable with retroactive effect, of the weighting applicable to their place of posting, in the present case Paris.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CV, CW and CY to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CV, CW and CY to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
#### HOOVER v. PHILLIPS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Florence A. Hoover, as administratrix, etc., against Bradley H. Phillips and another, as receivers, etc.

No opinion. Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled, motion for new trial denied, and judgment directed for defendants, with costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.4**




Written
      Statement of Principal Accounting Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christine M. Carriker,
      Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of December 31, 2005 and results of operations for
      the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Christine M. Carriker


______________________________


Christine
      M. Carriker


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)





March
      31,
      2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Companle call
      volume.


8.
      Strategic advice and other customary IR services.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          16,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  220,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,900
<INVENTORY>                                  1,057,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,525,679
<PP&E>                                         211,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,856,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,200,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,970
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,046,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,856,340
<SALES>                                        482,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               482,880
<CGS>                                          245,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  245,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,229,214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (992,228)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (169,881)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,162,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,162,109)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
     the Company.


/s/ Fred W. Brackebusch
----------------------
Fred W. Brackebusch
President
May 14, 2003
Exhibit 10.4

Confidential

LOGO

Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                        
|----- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                         
|      | 
|From: |  | Christopher K. McLeod, President & CEO                 
|      | 
|Date: |  | January 25, 2006                                       
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated August 10, 2005



---

I, Christopher K. McLeod, (the Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, 454 Life Sciences Corporation (the Company), on or about August 10, 2005, and subsequently
signed an Addendum to the Agreement on December 22, 2005. Schedule A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the
salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 25, 2006, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Executives 2006 base salary will be adjusted to $338,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly
installments.

Unless explicitly changed in the Addendum dated December 22, 2005, all other terms of the original Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.



|                     
|---------------------
|Christopher K. McLeod
|                     
|Patrick J. Zenner
#### Bruce Bernard TOWNSEND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-10188

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2011.

Bruce Bernard Townsend, Jesup, GA, pro se.

R. Brian Tanner, James Christian Stuc-hell, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Townsend appeals *pro se*the dismissal of his motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court dismissed Townsend’s motion as successive, *id.*§ 2244(b)(3), but the United States concedes that the district court had failed to notify Townsend before reclassifying an earlier pleading as a motion to vacate, as required by *Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. 375, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). Consequently, Townsend’s motion to vacate is not successive. We VACATE the order dismissing Townsend’s motion to vacate as successive, and we REMAND for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
* *

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS hio

DEC 28 2015

JLN THE

(LOudT OF CtlhMML RPPlsflLS Abel Acosta, Clerk

flVSTlhi) TEXA5

Davjd smith

FlLtD \H

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

V.

THE 5Jf\-T£ OF Ttf</»5 Abel Acosta, Clerk

From RpftoAl A/o. Q2-/sr-ooDS"3-CK

Ttifrl tki)5£ NO i j l3^3U>i»0 D

f\RST MoTlQAf foft gXTFA/5/0A| of TIME TO PILE

Petition for biscneTioM^Ry review

7D TWe HoHoRft&iB. ^t/o&es of thf coukt of CRim^iM APPEALS )

£o(W$ roouJ} D4W0 3MJTH, PM\*#*RI AtU fi\<S fU'S y^\o* f0*~ fijJ

etMFM of s',^ CUt>) dtp )m UU iv -p;k Afyjfa,, fa frscArioMY

Rei/W. Tm So/pod offils moi'i0Ml Aff»>ll#rf shau^s +k<c G>o/fr M-faf**'** *t
•J0 *

J.

Tht fkti+ioNm uufiS <Souv»'cfe<j \ri -fa, 3 b)SWid Count of "J^^ff

Cowhj ~T<a&s> ofH* offatsi o$ Possissiorf ofA&»iT*>iiGt Sv&sTA/Jce of four

6^M3 or Mone fiuTless TMMZ<x>GMhKs, fimelX I4m<>ri ',jj CAus<l tffr \s33i>t*o P

5+y/*/ 5+«+«. of Tuhs vs. Dwto swt«. -ft* W,»ien ^.J-h #<,

C&xkof.fi/jptAJS $VL6*i SofRWI 31X^1 DM,cf9 -p,c e*iSZ iAJfiS a#;*j*<<)

Dhl bociMbW 3> LOIS'.

JL.

THt pReavri-JtAdlitte ~fok -filing fa Mfad 4* PiSctetloM*? tfetW IS

. 5/W*:y 3, 3.0(it, Hz .Mi',oiJ«* A/45 H>&+ fafiwstd /*«"/ vx-hdlc*/ p&M •*©

/efrfie/fe* u&s loot InfoMtd o4 factz&isiod of- fa Qjoud o-f tytebls jm fifflm'iM

KS Qtii? L>«4U D«cc*k* H, Zeis'. 5///C1C fUf f,m A##W«C h*5 JotiAJ

Me^ffiH^ -fc> $»:« fal fafiteurtrtleM 'lM fh',5 puff*, fa fyfofiXy *> #e ^,/

5/e^e JI>M^ ?Ul 'Mfiwd fU'rfMtk fUi hi toiU U<rt /%/*eW fa J

"Hot faction f.0n fcAcMloMy Rcvku),

\A/mREFOfK£) HfM^Rp^^s CtvdfMtt this nrffa W^UA

&)

'&&f

T***S fr*/>MTfni»JT &4 C#m'iMLJZ*ticc

CjoIqpMd city, 7o(A5 nH&z*
EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

     I, David Moskowitz,  President and Chief Executive Officer of GenoMed, Inc.
(the  "registrant"),  have executed  this  certification  for  furnishing to the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  in  connection  with the filing  with the
Commission of the  registrant's  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report"). I hereby certify that:

          (1) the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     registrant as of and for the end of that period.

                                         /s/ David Moskowitz
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         David Moskowitz
Date:    April 1, 2005                   President and Chief Executive Officer


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
             FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

     I,  Robyn  Owens,   Chief   Financial   Officer  of  GenoMed,   Inc.   (the
"registrant"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the
registrant's  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2004
(the "Report"). I hereby certify that:

          (1) the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     registrant as of and for the end of that period.


                                         /s/ Robyn Owens
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Robyn Owens
Date:    April 1, 2005                   Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6635

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER FULTZ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Jamar Kentrell Walker , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cr - 00026

- JKW

- DEM

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28 , 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER , THACKER , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ryan Christopher Fultz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6635 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ryan Christopher Fultz appeals the district cou rt’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Fultz’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), an d finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s order, United States v. Fultz , No. 4:13

- cr - 00026

- JKW

- DEM

- 1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mater ials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6635 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2019255EN.01001703.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/17

---

Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA

(Case C-310/19 P)

(2019/C 255/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17, Schokker v EASA; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17, Schokker v EASA;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims, first, that the General Court erred in law by dismissing the action on a ground that it had raised if its own motion and erroneously categorised as ‘manifest’. When it did so, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure and the appellant’s rights of defence.

The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred in law by concluding that a verification of the grounds for the withdrawal of the offer of employment at issue was irrelevant, as an offer of employment can, in any case, be withdrawn at any moment without being subject to any conditions.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Carl THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7969.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Jason Carl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Fowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*754PER CURIAM:

Jason Carl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2019328EN.01002802.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2019 — Société Eco TLC v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire

(Case C-556/19)

(2019/C 328/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Eco TLC

Defendant: Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire

Other party: Fédération des entreprises du recyclage

Question referred

Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a system such as that described in paragraphs 9 to 11, whereby a private, non-profit eco-body, approved by the public authorities, receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets, is to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of that provision?

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, L. Don Stricklin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant,certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Texas United Bancshares,Inc.;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
   (a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;    (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and    (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   (a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and    (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: March 26, 2004
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Texas United Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (FileNos. 333-100162 and 333-100163) of our report dated February 25, 2005, on our audits of the financial statements and financial schedules of Texas United Bancshares, Inc., as of December 31, 2004, and for the year then ended, which report isincluded in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ **BKD, LLP**

 

Houston, Texas 

March 28, 2005